Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
| От | Dave Cramer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CADK3HHKvGzPYg+fsA9QbcA2H0YP-RTFNw=hs9mW-hMSjDQ_Eew@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion (Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
| Список | pgsql-jdbc |
On 25 November 2016 at 11:05, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:
As you can see, pgjdbc is rather conservative, and there's a good reason for that.
Ya, I'm not in favour of change for the sake of change.
So I do not expect lots of major version changes.On the other hand, PG might increment major version each year, so I find pgjdbc 13.0 vs pg 13.0 version clash quite real.
The only thing that would remotely trigger a major version change is a new JDBC version, even then we encapsulate that inside our versions.
Even if we arbitrary advance major version once a year, PG 13.0 would clash with pgjdbc 13.0.>There should be no problem since the version is greater than current one, 13 > 9(or 42 > 9) so packaging should be no problem...In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.For instance, some packaging scripts might easily use "9.4" part as a string literal since pgjdbc had "9.4.x" versions for quite a while.On the other hand, I think 42.0.0 should not create showstopper problems for packagers.
I've reached out to the postgres packagers for debian and centos. I'll let you know what they say
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: